[This Is Not Here]

To quote (ahem!) Roger Waters "thats like saying give a man Les Paul and he becomes Eric Clapton!". Well, not quite that extreme obviously, but to get to Eric Clapton standard on guitar it takes an incredible amount of effort. Yes people are not exactly alike, and it may take some people beyond their lifetime to get to Eric Clapton standard, but most people after many years of total dedication to music and their instrument could give Clapton a run for his money. They'd be getting there exactly the same way Clapton did, by playing relentlessly. But maybe the Clapton example hints more of issues of skill rather than creativity, not that he wasn't creative, but his total mastery of his instrument often overshadows the writing of it. But Mr. Waters is a good example of picking up the latter in my opinion, at the beggining of his stint in a rock band he couldn't even tune his damned bass, let alone write music. But after 30 years in the music industry by the end of his stint in PF he had written some of the most beloved tunes in classic rock. The Human League, started off as a self-proclaimed non-talent group, but after engrossing themselves in the music industry wrote some of the most recogniseable and sucessful pop songs of the 80s, as cringe-worthy as they may be. Essentially creation in any form and the output for it CAN be learnt, the assertion that some people just aren't creative is absurd. And 'talent', if it exists, can't be measured, and therefore is totally subjective. The same gig where, in your eyes, an untalented uncreative douchbag performs someone else could leave proclaiming him a genius, and vica versa.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

i can't believe someone on a music board is ignorant of the impact that rock n roll had on society. there are plenty of books on the subject, i would advise you to go to the library and read one.

I was reacting to your comment about Rock n' Rolls affect of people's individual LIVES, not society. They're very different things. I think rock can have only a very limited effect of people's lives, it hasn't had much of one on mine, and yet still it's something I enjoy very very much.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

I was reacting to your comment about Rock n' Rolls affect of people's individual LIVES, not society. They're very different things. I think rock can have only a very limited effect of people's lives, it hasn't had much of one on mine, and yet still it's something I enjoy very very much.

How can something affect society without affecting the idividuals who comprise that society?

[This Is Not Here]

I didn't say it did affect society.

[This Is Not Here]

I didn't say it didn't either.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

To quote (ahem!) Roger Waters "thats like saying give a man Les Paul and he becomes Eric Clapton!". Well, not quite that extreme obviously, but to get to Eric Clapton standard on guitar it takes an incredible amount of effort. Yes people are not exactly alike, and it may take some people beyond their lifetime to get to Eric Clapton standard, but most people after many years of total dedication to music and their instrument could give Clapton a run for his money. They'd be getting there exactly the same way Clapton did, by playing relentlessly. But maybe the Clapton example hints more of issues of skill rather than creativity, not that he wasn't creative, but his total mastery of his instrument often overshadows the writing of it. But Mr. Waters is a good example of picking up the latter in my opinion, at the beggining of his stint in a rock band he couldn't even tune his damned bass, let alone write music. But after 30 years in the music industry by the end of his stint in PF he had written some of the most beloved tunes in classic rock. The Human League, started off as a self-proclaimed non-talent group, but after engrossing themselves in the music industry wrote some of the most recogniseable and sucessful pop songs of the 80s, as cringe-worthy as they may be. Essentially creation in any form and the output for it CAN be learnt, the assertion that some people just aren't creative is absurd. And 'talent', if it exists, can't be measured, and therefore is totally subjective. The same gig where, in your eyes, an untalented uncreative douchbag performs someone else could leave proclaiming him a genius, and vica versa.

do you think if you played as much football when you were a kid as david beckham did you would be on your way to captaining england now?

[This Is Not Here]

I may have a good chance. But not likely, granted. But that example is a TOTALLY different ball-game (so to speak!) than what we're discussing here. Firstly, whilst I'd be quite likely to grasp the level of football theory and tactics Beckham has, because all human brains are capable of being taught things at varying speeds, being a footballer has to do with other factors. Physical factors, and all people are physically different, my body might not be (and lets face it, isn't) capable of running as damned fast as he can, I might not have same agility, and my stamina might not last for darting pointlessly around a field for 90 minutes.
Creativity on the other hand is almost totally a mental thing. As I said before all people can be taught to do things, and in the case of drawing, everyone has arms they can freely move around, what more do you need to becoming as "talented" as the people you've always been told are inherently better at stuff than you?

The only way you get ''the masses' to listen to classical music or 'highbrow concept' music is by putting it on a film/tv show soundtrack. Or if you are a dictator and force them to play it in their houses/public spaces all day.

Originally Posted by Lurker

Classical music is where the real art is and maybe some jazz.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum.

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

When something becomes an 'emotional need' doesn't that show total desperation that your music be original? Not only are sitting down trying to be original, but you're willing it with all your soul to validate your efforts, surely?

Not really. You just sit down expressing something that has emotional qualities the way you can express them with what you have, in whichever way you can do it. I'd be shocked and even disgusted to witness someone playing with validation of themselves as their sole motivation. Acousticrock is quite right in saying that some musicians do that, but then, where is the fun for others in you doing it? Experimenting with sounds in order to articulate what you want to express is one thing, doing it only to show off that you can ''repair and improve'' things is just pointless meandering.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

I don't buy this idea of inborn creativity ("creative people" - argh! that phrase!), the idea of creativity as a "gift" that some have and some don't makes a mockery of everyone who has worked relentlessly for their art. I can barely play music at all because I havn't worked at it enough. I can draw and paint well because I have. It's as simple as that. It's hardly natural, art in all it's capacity to inspire and blah blah blah comes from working your ass off, actually. It's not natural, and it DEFINATELY doesn't exempt you from mistakes.

That's just a definitional issue. "Creativity" is the development of new ideas, not the ability to bring them into existence. You can work your ass off your entire life to completely perfect an existing form of art, and not be the least bit creative. You would be talented, respectable, and a good musician/painter/whatever--but not creative.

Can creativity be learned? Perhaps. I don't know. But regardless, new ideas make someone creative by definition, whether or not it's innate.

And anyways, there are absolutely people who are naturally better at art--both creatively and technically. That should not downplay the effort non-natural talent requires, but there is natural talent everywhere. I would consider myself naturally creative, but I have almost no natural technical ability in music or visual art. There are people who can pick up a guitar or paintbrush and use it better than I could in 20 years of practice. Creativity, however, would determine what they do with that technical ability.

[PAULYBEE2656]

im regressing myself a lot today....

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by PAULYBEE2656

im regressing myself a lot today....

 

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

There are people who can pick up a guitar or paintbrush and use it better than I could in 20 years of practice.

Talent is just a word for people who can't grasp that the person in question has had 20 years of practice, too.

[Savage Clone]

Good god; if you can't recognize that individual people have their individual facilities and predispositions to excel in certain areas and not others ("talents" if you will), I don't know what anyone can say. I don't wish to be rude, but this line of thinking is about as pig-headed and ridiculous as I've seen on this board. Everyone is NOT equal, and everyone does not have the same potential to excel in every area or discipline ("creative" or otherwise) as everyone else on the freaking planet. If you can't recognize this, you are deliberately shoving your head in the sand and pretending the human condition is completely different than what it actually is.

Fucking a.

[demonrail666]

The problem is that nobody can really define talent. Unlike technique, It's impossible to quantify. We may intuitively know when we encounter the work of someone with talent but we can't pin down what it is, nor fully trust our intuition. As such I tend to agree with This is Not Here's position only because it strikes me as being the most workable. The concept of the artist-as-creator is a relatively modern one, that does away with a massive and far longer lasting tradition based solely on technique. As such, the great problem with so much of contemporary art education is its emphasis on ideas. It prepares people for becoming artists on a conceptual level without ever providing them with the skills necessary to express those ideas in a way that does them justice. On its own, hard work won't turn you into a Caravaggio, or a Hendrix, or a Joyce, or a Godard, but we don't really understand what they were anyway, at least not in any kind of identifiable sense.

[acousticrock87]

But you can't deny that one person can draw a straighter line than another with no practice. When you're talking about someone like Charlie Parker, who completely renovated jazz in a way I can't even fucking comprehend, yes, it becomes hard to determine what his "talent" was, but--and perhaps your word "technique" is a better one--what I mean by talent is the quantifiable. I completely agree that there is far to much emphasis on ideas/creativity--so in that sense I sympathize with yours and This Is Not Here's complaint that some people can become "artists" without working at it. However, there are cultural concepts--such as writing in iambic pentameter, or blending colors accurately--that are naturally grasped at different levels of ability. It doesn't mean that blending colors is an absolute "good talent," but it is within the context of our culture, and therefore becomes "natural talent." Perhaps someone has a natural talent at mixing colors in a way we don't aesthetically appreciate, so that might be considered "bad talent," within our culture that talent might be called "being good at mixing colors poorly." But it's natural.

Creativity is also somewhat quantifiable in that you can hold up the output of an artist in light of everything that the artist has been exposed to, and determine how much empiric restructuring has occurred. Or something. But creativity is essentially a measure of how much "new" stuff the artist comes up with that is also pleasing or valuable.

[acousticrock87]

Also, it might be worthwhile to note that I'm anti-formalist. I don't think a work can be attributed value without the context of both the artist and the viewer/reader/listener.

[pokkeherrie]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

The only way you get ''the masses' to listen to classical music or 'highbrow concept' music is by putting it on a film/tv show soundtrack.

Giving them a flag to wave often does the trick.

 

Not highbrow, but classical still.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Good god; if you can't recognize that individual people have their individual facilities and predispositions to excel in certain areas and not others ("talents" if you will), I don't know what anyone can say. I don't wish to be rude, but this line of thinking is about as pig-headed and ridiculous as I've seen on this board. Everyone is NOT equal, and everyone does not have the same potential to excel in every area or discipline ("creative" or otherwise) as everyone else on the freaking planet. If you can't recognize this, you are deliberately shoving your head in the sand and pretending the human condition is completely different than what it actually is.

Fucking a.

So what's the fucking message for all those out there that want to express themselves, and 'create'? ...

Practice makes perfect, practice your instrument or your painting style - but you might aswell quit at the first hurdle, the first difficultly you come across, because it just means your not talented. No point carrying on further to see if you get better at it, because if you're not gifted, the more you work at it the more time you waste. Give up. Give up now. Only certain people can create. Nobody knows who these people are, everyone thinks they're someone different. But just give up.

What IS NOT pig-headed about that?